| Date |
Text |
| 2018-04-10 17:57:59 | |
| | ROSEMARY TOWER (370 SOUTH ROSEMARY AVENUE) TRAFFIC |
| | ANALYSIS (DATED MARCH 8, 2018) COMMENTS: |
| | - CLARIFY THE PROPOSED OFFICE AND RETAIL SQUARE |
| | FOOTAGE. VARIOUS SQUARE-FOOTAGES FOR THE OFFICE ARE |
| | INDICATED IN THE TRAFFIC STUDY INCLUDING 227,321 SQ. |
| | FT., 249,902 SQ. FT., AND 205,118 SQ. FT. THE RETAIL |
| | SQUARE FOOTAGE OF 22,581 SQ. FT. IS ASSUMED IN THE |
| | TRAFFIC STUDY. THESE ARE DIFFERENT THAN THE SQUARE |
| | FOOTAGES SHOWN ON THE SUBMITTED SITE PLAN. |
| | - CONSIDER REMOVING THE EXCESS PARKING SPACES. THE |
| | EXCESS PARKING SPACES APPEAR TO BE CONTRADICTORY OF THE |
| | ASSUMPTION FOR MULTI-MODAL TRIPS. THE TRIP GENERATION |
| | ASSUMES 20% REDUCTION IN VEHICULAR TRIPS TO ACCOUNT FOR |
| | MULTIMODAL TRIPS AND INTERNALIZATION WITH ADJACENT |
| | DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENTS. HOWEVER, THE PROPOSED |
| | DEVELOPMENT PROVIDES 562 OFFICE ORIENTED PARKING |
| | SPACES, WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY 10% MORE THAN THE CODE |
| | REQUIREMENT OF 513 SPACES. |
| | - IF VEHICULAR TRIP REDUCTION IS ASSUMED AND EXCESS |
| | PARKING SPACES ARE PROPOSED, PLEASE PROVIDE A PARKING |
| | STUDY TO SHOW THAT THE EXCESS PARKING SPACES ARE NEEDED |
| | EVEN WITH THE VEHICULAR TRIP REDUCTION. |
| | - PROVIDE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR THE 20% |
| | REDUCTION FOR MULTI-MODAL TRIPS. 20% REDUCTION FOR |
| | MULTI-MODAL TRIPS IS VERY HIGH. |
| | - INTERNALIZATION OF TRIPS WITH ADJACENT DOWNTOWN |
| | DEVELOPMENTS SHOULD BE ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE TRIP |
| | DISTRIBUTION, BUT NOT AS A REDUCTION IN TRIP |
| | GENERATION. |
| | - CLARIFY IF THE ITE RATES WITH ?GENERAL URBAN/SUBURBAN |
| | CHARACTERISTICS? FROM THE 10TH EDITION OF ITE TRIP |
| | GENERATION MANUAL ALREADY ACCOUNT FOR PERSON-BASED |
| | TRIPS. THE TOTAL PEAK HOUR TRIPS IN TABLES 6 AND 7 ARE |
| | 35% LOWER THAN THE TRIPS ESTIMATED BASED ON THE TRIP |
| | GENERATION RATES FROM PALM BEACH COUNTY OR ITE TRIP |
| | GENERATION 9TH EDITION (398 AM TRIPS AND 372 PM TRIPS). |
| | THE 10TH EDITION OF ITE TRIP GENERATION MANUAL HAS |
| | ADDED DATA FOR URBAN LAND USES, AND THE PUBLISHED RATES |
| | MAY HAVE ACCOUNTED FOR MULTI-MODAL TRIPS. THEREFORE, |
| | INCLUDING AN ADDITIONAL 20% REDUCTION IN TRIPS MAY HAVE |
| | DOUBLE-DISCOUNTED FOR THE MULTI-MODAL TRIPS. |
| | - INCLUDE THE RETAIL LAND USES IN THE TRIP GENERATION |
| | ESTIMATES. |
| | - PROVIDE TRIP INFORMATION AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENT FOR |
| | EACH COMMITTED DEVELOPMENT ASSUMED IN THE REPORT. |
| | - COLLECT UPDATED COUNTS. TRAFFIC COUNTS WERE COLLECTED |
| | IN 2016. TRAFFIC PATTERN AND VOLUMES IN DOWNTOWN MIGHT |
| | HAVE CHANGED SIGNIFICANTLY SINCE THEN. |
| | - INCLUDE THE INTERSECTION ANALYSIS AT AUSTRALIAN |
| | AVENUE/CLEARWATER PLACE FOR THE FERN STREET EXTENSION |
| | SCENARIO. |
| | - PROVIDE WARRANT ANALYSIS FOR THE PROPOSED 4-WAY STOP |
| | AT ROSEMARY AVENUE/EVERNIA STREET PER GUIDANCE IN MUTCD |
| | - THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT RELIES HEAVILY ON FERN |
| | STREET, TAMARIND AVENUE, AND OKEECHOBEE BOULEVARD FOR |
| | VEHICULAR ACCESS TO THE SITE. 70% OF THE TRAFFIC IS |
| | ASSIGNED TO THE OKEECHOBEE BOULEVARD/TAMARIND AVENUE |
| | INTERSECTION, WHICH CURRENTLY OPERATES AT LOS E AND IS |
| | PROJECTED TO OPERATE AT LOS F WHEN BUILT-OUT. OVERALL |
| | INTERSECTION DELAY IS PROJECTED TO INCREASE BY 16% OVER |
| | THE BACKGROUND CONDITION DURING PM PEAK HOUR, BUT NO |
| | MITIGATION MEASURES ARE PROPOSED TO ADDRESS THE TRAFFIC |
| | ISSUES AT THIS INTERSECTION. PER CITY?S COMP PLAN, |
| | PLEASE IDENTIFY ADDITIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM |
| | MANAGEMENT (TSM) AND TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT |
| | (TDM) MEASURES AS MITIGATION, OR PROVIDE PROPORTIONATE |
| | SHARE CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS CITY?S TSM, TDM OR |
| | MULTI-MODEL IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING: |
| | O CONTRIBUTE FUNDING TOWARDS FERN STREET EXTENSION |
| | O CONTRIBUTE FUNDING TOWARDS DOWNTOWN TROLLEY |
| | OPERATIONS |
| | O CONTRIBUTE FUNDING TOWARDS THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT |
| | AT OKEECHOBEE BOULEVARD/TAMARIND AVENUE IN THE CITY?S |
| | DRAFT DOWNTOWN MOBILITY PLAN |
| | O RECONSTRUCT BOTH SIDES OF ROSEMARY STREET TO SHARED |
| | STREET ALONG THE SOUTHERN HALF OF THE PROPERTY FRONTAGE |
| | TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY?S DRAFT DOWNTOWN |
| | MOBILITY PLAN |
| | O PROVIDE PARKING MANAGEMENT AND PRICING STRATEGIES TO |
| | DISCOURAGE VEHICULAR TRIPS |
| | O REQUIRE TENANTS TO PROVIDE SUBSIDIES TO TRANSIT |
| | PASSES FOR EMPLOYEES CONTINUOUSLY |
| | O PROVIDE CAR SHARING AND BIKE SHARING SERVICES |
| | O DEDICATE PARKING SPACES FOR CARPOOLS |
| | O OTHER TDM MEASURES AS APPROPRIATE |
| | THE EXACT AMOUNT OF CONTRIBUTION WILL BE DETERMINED |
| | WHEN THE TRIP GENERATION AND TRAFFIC ANALYSES ARE |
| | FINALIZED |
| | - SOME OF THE LOS AND DELAY RESULTS REPORTED IN TABLES |
| | 3 AND 4 ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE SYNCHRO RESULTS IN |
| | THE APPENDICES. REPORT HCM 2010 RESULTS INSTEAD OF |
| | SYNCHRO RESULTS, AND INCLUDE THE APPROPRIATE OUTPUTS IN |
| | THE APPENDICES. IN ADDITION, SOME OF THE INFORMATION |
| | REPRESENTED IN TABLES 3 AND 4 ARE MISLEADING, AND |
| | DETAILED REVIEW CANNOT BE COMPLETED UNTIL THE TABLES |
| | ARE CORRECTED. FOR EXAMPLE: |
| | O SIGNAL TIMING ASSUMED FOR THE AM PEAK HOUR BACKGROUND |
| | CONDITION AT OKEECHOBEE BOULEVARD/TAMARIND AVENUE IS |
| | UNREASONABLE. WB LEFT-TURN IS ASSIGNED 67 SECONDS OF |
| | SPLIT TIME FOR 78 VEHICLES PER HOUR. THIS HAS RESULTED |
| | IN VERY HIGH DELAY FOR OTHER MOVEMENTS, RESULTING IN |
| | THE BACKGROUND CONDITION BEING A LOT WORSE THAN THE |
| | TOTAL CONDITION. |
| | O THE REPORTED LOS AND DELAY FOR THE PM PEAK HOUR AT |
| | OKEECHOBEE BOULEVARD/TAMARIND AVENUE ARE NOT CONSISTENT |
| | WITH THE SYNCHRO OUTPUTS. TABLE 4 SHOWS THAT TOTAL |
| | CONDITION OPERATES BETTER THAN BACKGROUND CONDITION, |
| | BUT THE SYNCHRO OUTPUTS SHOW A 16% INCREASE IN DELAY IN |
| | THE TOTAL CONDITION OVER BACKGROUND CONDITION. ALSO, |
| | DELAY OF 92.6 SECONDS PER VEHICLE IS LOS F BUT NOT LOS |
| | E AS REPORTED IN TABLE 4. |
| | O THE LANE CONFIGURATIONS USED FOR THE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS |
| | AT OKEECHOBEE BOULEVARD/TAMARIND AVENUE ARE NOT |
| | CONSISTENT WITH EXISTING LANE CONFIGURATIONS. |
| | O 10-MINUTE DELAY AND 40-MINUTE DELAY ARE REPORTED FOR |
| | THE SB LEFT-TURN MOVEMENT AT OKEECHOBEE |
| | BOULEVARD/QUADRILLE BOULEVARD DURING AM AND PM PEAK |
| | HOUR EVEN UNDER EXISTING CONDITIONS. CLARIFY IF THIS IS |
| | REASONABLE. |
| | SITE PLAN COMMENTS (RECEIVED ON MARCH 13, 2018): |
| | - DIMENSION ALL DRIVEWAY WIDTHS |
| | - DIMENSION THE RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTHS ON ALL FRONTAGE |
| | ROADWAYS |
| | - IN ADDITION TO SETBACKS FROM PROPERTY LINE, DIMENSION |
| | SETBACKS FROM CENTERLINE OF THE ROADWAY PER CITY CODE |
| | 94-305(D) AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT |
| | APPENDIX A |
| | - CLARIFY WHERE THE EXISTING SKYBIKE STATION ON |
| | ROSEMARY AVENUE WOULD BE RELOCATED |
| | - PROVIDE SECURE BIKE RACKS AND/OR BIKE STORAGE PER |
| | CITY CODE 94-111(I)(1). THE PROPOSED BIKE RACKS ARE |
| | LOCATED ON THE SERVICE VEHICLE ALLEY WHICH IS GATED. |
| | PLEASE CLARIFY IF TENANTS ARE ABLE TO ACCESS THE BIKE |
| | RACKS. |
| | - PROVIDE SHOWER AND CHANGING FACILITIES AVAILABLE FOR |
| | ALL TENANTS PER CITY CODE 94-111(I)(1) |
| | - THE EXISTING LIVE OAK TREES ON ROSEMARY AVENUE DEFINE |
| | EACH PARKING SPACE WHICH HAS DIFFERENT PAVER PATTERN |
| | THAN THE SIDEWALK. REVISE THE HARDSCAPE FOR PARKING |
| | SPACES TO MATCH ROSEMARY AVENUE STREETSCAPE |
| | - PROVIDE TYPE III PAVER DETAILS WHICH IS MISSING FROM |
| | THE HARDSCAPE PLAN |
| | - SOME PLAN SHEETS SHOW THE EXISTING PARKING SPACES |
| | OUTSIDE THE PUBLIX BUILDING, WHILE SOME DO NOT. CLARIFY |
| | IF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WILL RECONSTRUCT THE WEST |
| | SIDE OF ROSEMARY AVENUE TO SHARED STREET MATCHING THE |
| | REST OF ROSEMARY AVENUE. IF NOT, PLEASE INCLUDE THIS IN |
| | THE RECONSTRUCTION. |
| | - IF THE 4-WAY STOP CONTROL IS PROPOSED AND WARRANTED |
| | AT ROSEMARY AVENUE/EVERNIA STREET, PLEASE PROVIDE |
| | PAVEMENT MARKING AND SIGNAGE AT THIS INTERSECTION. |
| | - THE AUTOTURN TRUCK PATHS ARE SHOWN TO TRACK OVER THE |
| | CONCRETE SIDEWALK ALONG THE ALLEY. PLEASE REVISE. |
| | - NARROW THE SERVICE VEHICLE EXIT. THE SERVICE VEHICLE |
| | EXIT IS WIDER THAN REQUIRED PER THE AUTOTURN TRUCK |
| | PATHS. |
| | - CLARIFY IF THE SERVICE VEHICLE ENTRANCE IS GATED MOST |
| | OF THE TIME, AND IF SO, CLARIFY HOW THE UTILITY SERVICE |
| | VEHICLES ARE ABLE TO ACCESS THE ALLEY WAY. |
| | - PROVIDE AUTOTURN TEMPLATE FOR UTILITY SERVICE |
| | VEHICLES ALONG THE ALLEY WAY INCLUDING THE 90-DEGREE |
| | TURN TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES. |
| | |
| | ERIK D. FERGUSON, P.E. |
| | CITY TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER |
| | 561-494-1092 |
| | [email protected] |
| |
Print |
